Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Rangers Head Coach Search (Laviolette being finalized? According to Vince and Friedman)

Status
Not open for further replies.
mas0764 said:
Drury needs to make it clear to whoever he hires that developing the youth and coming up with fresh schemes is priority #1. Which he clearly didn't send that memo to Quinn.

I mean, obviously winning is priority #1, but it should be winning the Cup, not just compiling regular season wins, and Drury should make it clear that winning the Cup is contingent upon developing the kids and unlocking the vets with creative systems. Hoepfully Lavi is willing to make changes but his most recent stop doesn't inspire confidence.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see our younger players step up more. I'm all for a faster offensive system. Problem is we lack individual speed. Systems can help but they are not magic. We need more individual speed both at forward and on defense.

I think most franchises make a priority of making the playoffs with the goal being a cup. Can't win a cup if we are not in the playoffs. I think a head coach can play a small role in a young players development but not nearly as large as you do. No head coach is going to make Laf in to McDavid. No head coach is going to make Mathews in to Chytil. EDM has McDavid and Leo while also having first round disappointments. They had the same exact head coaches.
 
People saying this coach is better than that coach are as accurate as those guessing the next number on the roulette wheel.

A coach can be better for a short while when replacing a coach who lost his team, but that's the only eveidence I've ever seen of a coach making a team better. No coach wins a Cup without top personnel.
 
AirGut said:
thing is, Washington has been in an organizational decline since the cup win. As expected. Laviolette certainly wasn't going to save them nor was any other coach imo. They won their cup. They were always going to be a one & done group.

I'm huffing the hopium now but I expect Lavi to feel more refreshed here going into NY than when he was signed by WSH. I still think the only thing that will fix some of our bigger issues is a slight roster shakeup, whether Drury is planning to do that this summer is still up in the air.
Click to expand...
I mean, I’m gonna root for the guy and hope for the best, but he definitely was part of the problem in Washington with his inability to get the stars to buy into his system and integrate younger players into the lineup. He ran Siegenthaler out of town and he’s now a good top-4 dman for the Devils.

It just seems all-around mediocre and lazy, which is why I have an issue with it. If you want to say we’re closer to his Flyers and Predators teams, he had similar issues there of wearing out teams and leaving them for worse. I really do hope I’m wrong, but the track record kind of speaks for itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HatTrick Swayze, haveandare, AirGut and 1 other person
chosen said:
People saying this coach is better than that coach are as accurate as those guessing the next number on the roulette wheel.

A coach can be better for a short while when replacing a coach who lost his team, but that's the only eveidence I've ever seen of a coach making a team better. No coach wins a Cup without top personnel.
Click to expand...
Bruce Cassidy has an arguably less deep Vegas roster than last year's team (which missed the playoffs altogether) a win away from a final. They offloaded Pacioretty for literally nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mas0764 and will1066
mas0764 said:
Nah, I just don't agree remotely.

So I guess that is the answer to your original question.

The fact that so many people in the org echo your sentiment is one of the reasons why we don't win anything. Our highest end forwards simply don't stack up consistently.



Not having had success in a long time is directly related to the fact that he's been recycled so often.
Click to expand...
So many people argue that sentiment is because it's true. Again, Kreider scored 88 goals the last 2 years. Not many forwards in the league have done that.
 
Crease said:
Laviolette's history with the Islanders and Flyers is tainting this fanbase's opinion. He's a fine coach.
Click to expand...

His performance with Washington is the most recent thing we have to go off of. He was awful there.

I think that had we hired him post Nashville the opinion would be different (and the end of his tenure there blew too but at least they were a force for a hot second) but a lot of that also has to do with the players he had to work with. We aren't built that way and there doesn't seem like there is much urgency from the FO to go in that direction (I totally realize that the off season hasn't started yet, but its not like they have a ton of space to operate with, thanks Jeff!)

This team is WAY closer to what Washington is/was than what Nashville/Philly/Carolina/whoever were when he got to those teams. The catering to vets that happened in Washington was disgusting and is really the last thing that this group needs. Theres no doubt that the Caps were already on the downswing when he got there but his insistence on leaning on bad veterans really expedited that process.

At the end of the day, the issue with this team is more roster related than it is philosophy related. If they're going to try to stick it out and make it work with the same group they're f***ed and it wouldn't matter who they hired but hiring the guy who gives an endless leash to veterans (especially ONE of them in particular) is just more of the same, just with a different voice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheDirtyH, Mac n Gs and will1066
GoAwayPanarin said:
His performance with Washington is the most recent thing we have to go off of. He was awful there.

I think that had we hired him post Nashville the opinion would be different (and the end of his tenure there blew too but at least they were a force for a hot second) but a lot of that also has to do with the players he had to work with. We aren't built that way and there doesn't seem like there is much urgency from the FO to go in that direction (I totally realize that the off season hasn't started yet, but its not like they have a ton of space to operate with, thanks Jeff!)

This team is WAY closer to what Washington is/was than what Nashville/Philly/Carolina/whoever were when he got to those teams. The catering to vets that happened in Washington was disgusting and is really the last thing that this group needs. Theres no doubt that the Caps were already on the downswing when he got there but his insistence on leaning on bad veterans really expedited that process.

At the end of the day, the issue with this team is more roster related than it is philosophy related. If they're going to try to stick it out and make it work with the same group they're f***ed and it wouldn't matter who they hired but hiring the guy who gives an endless leash to veterans (especially ONE of them in particular) is just more of the same, just with a different voice.
Click to expand...
Though they managed the puck decently, Washington is old and slow and he couldn't find a way to speed them up, so very little expectation he can do it here. But we'll see.
 
GoAwayPanarin said:
His performance with Washington is the most recent thing we have to go off of. He was awful there.
Click to expand...

will1066 said:
Though they managed the puck decently, Washington is old and slow and he couldn't find a way to speed them up, so very little expectation he can do it here. But we'll see.
Click to expand...
2 years back Caps had 100 points
last season Caps were decimated by injuries and absences (Backstrom, Oshie, Carlson, Wilson, Hagelin, Ovi, ...)
 
  • Like
Reactions: will1066
Somehow I still don't think Laviolette is the guy. Seems like Friedman and Vince jumped the gun here. Usually when a reporter says things are moving towards a resolution or something to that affect, that means it's done already and they are just getting the news, and then something is announced shortly after. That didn't happen so makes me think nothing is close. Someone else is the guy.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: Kravtsov420 and TheDirtyH
cwede said:
2 years back Caps had 100 points
last season Caps were decimated by injuries and absences (Backstrom, Oshie, Carlson, Wilson, Hagelin, Ovi, ...)
Click to expand...

The Predators had the lowest point total of all playoff teams 2 years ago with 97.

100 point seasons aren't that big of a deal anymore. Caps were an 8 seed at 100 points.

They didn't get out of the first round with Lavi behind the bench. His biggest accomplishment as a Caps coach was pushing the Presidents trophy Panthers to 6 games (the same Panthers who were swept a round later.)

His higher seeded Caps got knocked out in 5 by Boston a year earlier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mas0764
cwede said:
2 years back Caps had 100 points
last season Caps were decimated by injuries and absences (Backstrom, Oshie, Carlson, Wilson, Hagelin, Ovi, ...)
Click to expand...

100 points doesn't mean all that much anymore. Neither of those Caps teams were looking like legit contenders.
 
mas0764 said:
Drury needs to make it clear to whoever he hires that developing the youth and coming up with fresh schemes is priority #1. Which he clearly didn't send that memo to Quinn.

I mean, obviously winning is priority #1, but it should be winning the Cup, not just compiling regular season wins, and Drury should make it clear that winning the Cup is contingent upon developing the kids and unlocking the vets with creative systems. Hoepfully Lavi is willing to make changes but his most recent stop doesn't inspire confidence.
Click to expand...

It's important that the 'youth' covers more than just the kid line.

Jones, Othmann, Cuylle deserve real shots in camp. If they outplay a veteran, then should start the year in the NHL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mas0764
My bias against Laviolette (what else to call it when you don't really know the difference between coaches) is about my feeling that the Rangers have all my life been chasing the template for how to win 5 years ago, never inventing their own identity. That's where the hate for the re-tread as re-tread comes in, as well as the hope for someone new to the scene.

With Shesterkin, I have little doubt that just about any coach we hire will get into the playoffs. He alone basically guarantees us 95-100 points. Sprinkle in a functional PP and you're flirting with a division or conference title. Laviolette, I'm sure, will 'have success' here, just as Gallant did. The question is whether he in any way adds something beyond the standings this season.

I was pro-Gallant at the time of hiring mainly because I loved the tenacity his Golden Knights, Panthers, and Canada WC teams played with. But the honeymoon was over for me as soon as Kreider-Zibanejad and Strome-Panarin were stapled together from the beginning of training camp, to say nothing of the D-pairs. It was obvious from that moment that what Gallant was bringing to the table was little more than getting out of his own way and maintaining the status quo more effectively than Quinn.

What's Laviolette going to bring that's any different? Maybe his rep as a 'tactician' (frankly something I'm only hearing about him now that, conveniently, the Rangers are looking for such a type) means that he'll do more instruction with the players, get them to play attentively to the system he's bringing (don't all coaches say everybody runs the same systems?). But what about this team's trajectory is changing, positively, by adding Laviolette to the mix? IDK, point is that from a very uneducated POV (my own), hiring Laviolette feels like a move meant to get more of (and a bit more out of) the same rather than changing anything this team's identity. JMHO
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaBadGuy7, duhmetreE, Mac n Gs and 2 others
TheDirtyH said:
My bias against Laviolette (what else to call it when you don't really know the difference between coaches) is about my feeling that the Rangers have all my life been chasing the template for how to win 5 years ago, never inventing their own identity. That's where the hate for the re-tread as re-tread comes in, as well as the hope for someone new to the scene.

With Shesterkin, I have little doubt that just about any coach we hire will get into the playoffs. He alone basically guarantees us 95-100 points. Sprinkle in a functional PP and you're flirting with a division or conference title. Laviolette, I'm sure, will 'have success' here, just as Gallant did. The question is whether he in any way adds something beyond the standings this season.

I was pro-Gallant at the time of hiring mainly because I loved the tenacity his Golden Knights, Panthers, and Canada WC teams played with. But the honeymoon was over for me as soon as Kreider-Zibanejad and Strome-Panarin were stapled together from the beginning of training camp, to say nothing of the D-pairs. It was obvious from that moment that what Gallant was bringing to the table was little more than getting out of his own way and maintaining the status quo more effectively than Quinn.

What's Laviolette going to bring that's any different? Maybe his rep as a 'tactician' (frankly something I'm only hearing about him now that, conveniently, the Rangers are looking for such a type) means that he'll do more instruction with the players, get them to play attentively to the system he's bringing (don't all coaches say everybody runs the same systems?). But what about this team's trajectory is changing, positively, by adding Laviolette to the mix? IDK, point is that from a very uneducated POV (my own), hiring Laviolette feels like a move meant to get more of (and a bit more out of) the same rather than changing anything this team's identity. JMHO
Click to expand...

Agree, well said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheDirtyH
TheDirtyH said:
My bias against Laviolette (what else to call it when you don't really know the difference between coaches) is about my feeling that the Rangers have all my life been chasing the template for how to win 5 years ago, never inventing their own identity. That's where the hate for the re-tread as re-tread comes in, as well as the hope for someone new to the scene.

With Shesterkin, I have little doubt that just about any coach we hire will get into the playoffs. He alone basically guarantees us 95-100 points. Sprinkle in a functional PP and you're flirting with a division or conference title. Laviolette, I'm sure, will 'have success' here, just as Gallant did. The question is whether he in any way adds something beyond the standings this season.

I was pro-Gallant at the time of hiring mainly because I loved the tenacity his Golden Knights, Panthers, and Canada WC teams played with. But the honeymoon was over for me as soon as Kreider-Zibanejad and Strome-Panarin were stapled together from the beginning of training camp, to say nothing of the D-pairs. It was obvious from that moment that what Gallant was bringing to the table was little more than getting out of his own way and maintaining the status quo more effectively than Quinn.

What's Laviolette going to bring that's any different? Maybe his rep as a 'tactician' (frankly something I'm only hearing about him now that, conveniently, the Rangers are looking for such a type) means that he'll do more instruction with the players, get them to play attentively to the system he's bringing (don't all coaches say everybody runs the same systems?). But what about this team's trajectory is changing, positively, by adding Laviolette to the mix? IDK, point is that from a very uneducated POV (my own), hiring Laviolette feels like a move meant to get more of (and a bit more out of) the same rather than changing anything this team's identity. JMHO
Click to expand...
Mid team gonna mid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheDirtyH
I have nothing against Lavi as the coach

We just had certain needs to take it to the next step and he's just not the guy that checks the most boxes to achieve that

Imo, that was Sutter.
 
SRHRangers said:
I have nothing against Lavi as the coach

We just had certain needs to take it to the next step and he's just not the guy that checks the most boxes to achieve that

Imo, that was Sutter.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Sutter with his horrible treatment of young players and misusing finesse players such as Huberdeau (see, Panarin) sure seemed like a fit...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom